Recently we started rendering our Revit models to provide an up-to-date image of the architectural design. Before, we updated our SketchUp (SU) model along with the Revit model, but for obvious efficiency reasons we want to skip that part. In some testing I found that the renders from Revit look quite different than the renders from SketchUp, even though I use the same materials and settings.
First I made sure that all materials in Revit are generic, so they are visible in the Enscape Material Library. Next I exported all Material Packages from our SU model and imported them into the respective material in the Enscape Material Editor in Revit. Lastly I loaded the same Visual Preset into Revit which was also used in SU.
My expectation was two identical images, but for some reason the Revit+Enscape model looks more dull and darker than in SU+Enscape. I am not really asking for a direct solution, but more of an understanding how Enscape works with both SU and Revit.
I would think that the same Enscape Material Packages with the same Visual Preset would give the same image. But are these programs fundamentally different towards Enscape? Am I missing something in my method?
We have also made this exact transition. It was cumbersome to continue to update the visual model in Sketchup as well as the architectural model in Revit. In the end we now have a Revit model that includes more information than we could have ever imagined. Where our output is currently plans, coordination documents for contractors, documentation schedules and visualization. Ideally each effort we put forth would directly advance each of our outputs. However, even though we made this transition a while ago. Recreating model geometry, materiality and lighting takes much longer in Revit. We create Enscape assets from our old Sketchup models sometimes. Or we totally recreate the models as family geometry. The result is longer loading times and the continuous commitment to keep the standard material naming convention, workset management, view templates, visual settings, lighting calculation(the most time consuming), level of detail, and overall the level of completeness we are willing to present to the clients. The last point is important because with visualization there is rarely a point where you are done. The most common result is making something just look better that is all you can hope.
Fundamentally, lights are much different. I had some trouble getting started with lighting, models I found often needed altering, and so on… Make sure you have self illumination material for those. Make sure the IES or the generic light source for Revit is correct.
I have also noticed that walls, roofs and floors in revit must be very accurate and complete to avoid any light leakage from the outside.
Thanks for sharing your experience, good to hear more people go through the same struggles.
I totally agree that making a Revit model render-ready takes more effort than in software like SketchUp. Lighting in Revit took a while to master; night and day renders are going well so far. Currently we are testing if working with worksets is efficient or not. For example: one workset for all the architectural parts of the model, which we can share with all the contractors, and one workset for the terrain, trees, cars, people and other environmental things.
Ideally, after acquiring the building permit, we set the SketchUp model aside and use the Revit model for future impressions. But, the question still remains: why do Revit and SketchUp models look so different with the same Material Packages, Visual Presets and other settings.